4 ms·
John says the first one is "password", in under a second. I'll wait for a few hours to see if I can get the second one speedily. (By the way, this is why you sh
by MostAwesomeDude 15y ago
John says the first one is "password", in under a second. I'll wait for a few hours to see if I can get the second one speedily. (By the way, this is why you shouldn't use MD5!)
- ominous_prime 15y agomd5 doesn't have anything to with it. sha256 maybe takes 10% longer to compute the hash.
- robtoo 15y agogrand-parent's point is presumably that bcrypt (or similar) is a better choice than md5.
- kingkilr 15y agoWhich is useful if you're brute forcing, md5 is also algorithmatically broken AFAIK.
- tomjen3 15y agoDefine broken. It is possible to generate (within reasonable time) two files which have the same md5 sum, which means you shouldn't use it to sign anything somebody else have given you. On the other hand collisions between two different files are still not something you would ever expect to see in the wild so if you are trying to find duplicated files, then you don't have to worry.
- burgerbrain 15y agoNo, that extra 10% doesn't mean shit against a brute force attack. As others have stated, use PBKDF2 or bcrypt.
- sdkmvx 15y agoYou're right. I would never advocate using MD5. Use PBKDF2, bcrypt, etc! I just needed some hex strings to make my point about the hashes (hopefully) not being reversible to the actual password, and thus useless for the purposes of seeing if the passwords are 'strong.'